News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by zerostar07 on Monday August 27, 2012 @05:17PM (#4440982)
What was that law that said that all titles that ended with a question mark can be answered "No"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by cnu on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:31PM (#4441711)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by rootedbox on Monday August 27, 2012 @05:18PM (#4440986)
It may or may not be.. Its dependent on CPU, and Compiler.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by ta12121 on Monday August 27, 2012 @05:08PM (#4440934)
The top voted answer explains that the premise of the question and therefore the title of the submission is wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by acqq on Monday August 27, 2012 @05:33PM (#4441042)
So you missed the answer from ridiculous_fish there: on Power PC CPU's doing floating point comparisons the speeds are actually different. That's a perfect counterexample for your claim that "the premise is wrong."

Detailed explanation about reasons was given by Lukas.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by ta12121 on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @01:16PM (#4444783)
The Detailed Explanation given by Lucas concludes:

    So, on some machines, using a "less than" comparison
    might save one machine instruction. This was relevant in
    the era of sub-megahertz processor speed and 1:1 
    cpu-to-memory speed ratios, but is almost totally
    irrelevant today.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by mrjbq7 on Monday August 27, 2012 @05:17PM (#4440980)
Why is this a frontpage HN post?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by ta12121 on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @01:03PM (#4444693)
I wish I knew, but I got downvoted for a constructive attempt at pointing it out.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why is < faster than <=? by carbuncle on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @06:09AM (#4442864)
"No"
[ Parent | on HN ]